This is what passes for an important issue to the Trudeau government in Canada which has been one of the leading nations in persecuting its unvaccinated citizens:
I did like how all of the trained (and masked/virtue signalling) Liberal monkeys around her applauded her announcement after she finished speaking, even going so far as to shake her potentially SARS-CoV-2 hand! On the upside, it's nice to know that Canada and Canadians have nothing to worry about; under the Trudeau regime, all of the nation's problems, with the notable exception of its treatment of vaginas and vulvas, have been solved.
Since Canada's Liberal Party bases its philosophy on total inclusion (except for unvaccinated Canadians who are deemed unworthy of using the nation's airlines and rail infrastructure as passengers because they are either misogynistic or racist according to Justin Trudeau) I very quickly noted that MP Pam Damoff made three key omissions. While she celebrates vaginas and vulvas, she seems to have completely forgotten about clitori, uteri and ovaries who are now feeling inferior because they don't have their own special day.
As an aside, here is further information on Ms. Damoff and her role in leading Canada:
...and, as an MP, here is what she is costing Canadian taxpayers:
Member of the House of Commons - $189,500
Parliamentary Secretary - $18,400
...as well as this:
Certainly, Canadian taxpayers are getting their money's worth from Ms. Damoff and her vagina/vulva.
In closing and just in case those Canadians who have an X and Y chromosome can assure themselves of one thing; from the tone of Ms. Damoff's speech, a special celebration day for vas deferens and scrotums is pretty much a non-starter. Sorry about that.
For some reason, this word comes to mind and I can't really explain why:
Back in 2003, the United States federal government launched "Ready", a national public service campaign designed to "...educate and empower the American people to prepare for, respond to and mitigate emergencies, including natural and man-made disasters. The goal of the campaign is to promote preparedness through public involvement.
In a [recent posting](http:// https://www.ready.gov/nuclear-explosion) on the Ready website, we find some rather interesting information given that the world has taken a relatively significant step forward toward a nuclear exchange over the past few days. Here it is:
For my baby boomer-aged readers, you might remember this instructional video from the Cold War Part 1:
There is no doubt that coats, a student's desk and "ducking and covering" would provide students with complete protection from a nuclear blast and the accompanying radiation.
Now, let's look at at the advice being offered to Americans trying to survive a nuclear explosion during the Cold War Part 2 with my highlights throughout:
Get inside the nearest building to avoid radiation. Brick or concrete are best.
Remove contaminated clothing and wipe off or wash unprotected skin if you were outside after the fallout arrived. Hand sanitizer does not protect against fall out. Avoid touching your eyes, nose, and mouth, if possible. Do not use disinfectant wipes on your skin.
Go to the basement or middle of the building. Stay away from the outer walls and roof. Try to maintain a distance of at least six feet between yourself and people who are not part of your household. If possible, wear a mask if you’re sheltering with people who are not a part of your household. Children under two years old, people who have trouble breathing, and those who are unable to remove masks on their own should not wear them.
Notice that, even though you and your family have the potential to be killed or seriously injured by a nuclear explosion, one of your priorities is to make sure that you are masked and maintain the six foot physical distancing that we've all been brainwashed to believe will prevent the spread of COVID-19.
Here's more advice:
Stay inside for 24 hours unless local authorities provide other instructions. Continue to practice social distancing by wearing a mask and by keeping a distance of at least six feet between yourself and people who not part of your household.
Family should stay where they are inside. Reunite later to avoid exposure to dangerous radiation.
Keep your pets inside.
Yet again, keep wearing that face diaper and stay at least six feet away from people who are not part of your household even though that six foot distance may mean that the building in which you are taking shelter cannot accommodate as many potential victims of a nuclear explosion.
Now, let's look at the recommendations for a scenario where you are warned of an imminent attack (i.e. the nuclear weapons have been activated, launched and are on their way):
If warned of an imminent attack, immediately get inside the nearest building and move away from windows. This will help provide protection from the blast, heat, and radiation of the detonation.
When you have reached a safe place, try to maintain a distance of at least six feet between yourself and people who are not part of your household. If possible, wear a mask if you’re sheltering with people who are not a part of your household. Children under two years old, people who have trouble breathing, and those who are unable to remove masks on their own should not wear them.
If you didn't get the message the first two times, the third time should be a charm. You are to wear your mask and maintain at least a six foot physical distance from those sharing your fallout shelter that are not part of your household.
And, here's one last bit of advice on how to survive a nuclear explosion in the time of COVID-19:
If you have evacuated, do not return until you are told it is safe to do so by local officials.
"Make plans to stay with friends or family in case of evacuation. Keep in mind that public shelter locations may have changed due to COVID-19. Check with local authorities to determine which public shelters are open.
If you are told by authorities to evacuate to a public shelter, try to bring items that can help protect yourself and your family from COVID-19, such as hand sanitizer that contains at least 60 percent alcohol, cleaning materials, and two masks per person. Children under two years old, people who have trouble breathing, and people who cannot remove masks on their own should not wear them."
This gives you some sense of just how stupid and single-minded the government has become. You're about to face potential annihilation thanks to a nuclear explosion and the end of civilization as we know it but yet, the government expects that you're going to bring your own hand sanitizer that contains at least 60 percent alcohol, two masks for everyone in your household and other cleaning/sanitizing materials. Oh yes, and maintain at least a six foot distance between you and anyone who is not in your household.
A question - what happens in a scenario where you don't have hand sanitizer that contains at least 60 percent alcohol? Will you be shunned by the other people taking refuge with you? What the government isn't telling you is that, if there is a nuclear explosion, you'd be smartest to bend over and kiss your butt goodbye.
Every time that I think that we've reached peak stupid I'm disappointed to find out that we're not there yet.
Let's open this posting with a definition:
"Antibody-Dependent Enhancement or ADE occurs when the antibodies generated during an immune response recognize and bind to a pathogen, but they are unable to prevent infection. Instead, these antibodies act as a “Trojan horse,” allowing the pathogen to get into cells and exacerbate the immune response.
On a few occasions ADE has resulted from vaccination:
Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) — RSV is a virus that commonly causes pneumonia in children. A vaccine was made by growing RSV, purifying it, and inactivating it with the chemical formaldehyde. In clinical trials, children who were given the vaccine were more likely to develop or die from pneumonia after infection with RSV. As a result of this finding, the vaccine trials stopped, and the vaccine was never submitted for approval or released to the public.
Measles — An early version of measles vaccine was made by inactivating measles virus using formaldehyde. Children who were vaccinated and later became infected with measles in the community developed high fevers, unusual rash, and an atypical form of pneumonia. Upon seeing these results, the vaccine was withdrawn from use, and those who received this version of the vaccine were recommended to be vaccinated again using the live, weakened measles vaccine, which does not cause ADE and is still in use today.
A more recent example of ADE following vaccination comes from dengue virus:
Dengue virus — In 2016, a dengue virus vaccine was designed to protect against all four serotypes of the virus. The hope was that by inducing immune responses to all four serotypes at once, the vaccine could circumvent the issues related to ADE following disease with dengue virus. The vaccine was given to 800,000 children in the Philippines. Fourteen vaccinated children died after encountering dengue virus in the community. It is hypothesized that the children developed antibody responses that were not capable of neutralizing the natural virus circulating in the community. As such, the vaccine was recommended only for children greater than 9 years of age who had already been exposed to the virus."
Here is another quote about ADE and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines from a paper entitled "Antibody-dependent enhancement and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and therapies" by Wen She Lee et al as found in Nature Microbiology with my bolds throughout:
"Antibody-based drugs and vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are being expedited through preclinical and clinical development. Data from the study of SARS-CoV and other respiratory viruses suggest that anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies could exacerbate COVID-19 through antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). Previous respiratory syncytial virus and dengue virus vaccine studies revealed human clinical safety risks related to ADE, resulting in failed vaccine trials."
Here is the conclusion from the paper:
"ADE has been observed in SARS, MERS and other human respiratory virus infections including RSV and measles, which suggests a real risk of ADE for SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and antibody-based interventions. However, clinical data has not yet fully established a role for ADE in human COVID-19 pathology. Steps to reduce the risks of ADE from immunotherapies include the induction or delivery of high doses of potent neutralizing antibodies, rather than lower concentrations of non-neutralizing antibodies that would be more likely to cause ADE.
Going forwards, it will be crucial to evaluate animal and clinical datasets for signs of ADE, and to balance ADE-related safety risks against intervention efficacy if clinical ADE is observed. Ongoing animal and human clinical studies will provide important insights into the mechanisms of ADE in COVID-19. Such evidence is sorely needed to ensure product safety in the large-scale medical interventions that are likely required to reduce the global burden of COVID-19."
To put it very simply, ADE can occur in vaccinated humans and animals when they are exposed to the wild virus (the challenge).
With that background, let's look at a very little-reported article that appeared on the National Institutes of Health National Liberary of Medicine website entitled "Informed consent disclosure to vaccine trial subjects of risk of COVID-19 vaccines worsening clinical disease" by Timothy Cardozo and Ronald Veazey as shown here:
The authors open by noting the following:
"Patient comprehension is a critical part of meeting medical ethics standards of informed consent in study designs. The aim of the study was to determine if sufficient literature exists to require clinicians to disclose the specific risk that COVID-19 vaccines could worsen disease upon exposure to challenge or circulating virus."
Here is another definition, also from the NIH website:
"Informed consent is the process in which a health care provider educates a patient about the risks, benefits, and alternatives of a given procedure or intervention. The patient must be competent to make a voluntary decision about whether to undergo the procedure or intervention. Informed consent is both an ethical and legal obligation of medical practitioners in the US and originates from the patient's right to direct what happens to their body. Implicit in providing informed consent is an assessment of the patient's understanding, rendering an actual recommendation, and documentation of the process. The Joint Commission requires documentation of all the elements of informed consent "in a form, progress notes or elsewhere in the record." The following are the required elements for documentation of the informed consent discussion: (1) the nature of the procedure, (2) the risks and benefits and the procedure, (3) reasonable alternatives, (4) risks and benefits of alternatives, and (5) assessment of the patient's understanding of elements 1 through 4.
It is the obligation of the provider to make it clear that the patient is participating in the decision-making process and avoid making the patient feel forced to agree to with the provider. The provider must make a recommendation and provide their reasoning for said recommendation."
In other words, medical practitioners have the legal and moral obligation to ensure that the people that they are treating understand the risks and benefits of the medical procedure (including vaccinations) and that they do not feel coerced into receiving the medical procedure.
Let's go back to the article by Cardozo and Veazey. The authors reviewed published literature and clinical trial protocols to identify evidence that COVID-19 vaccines could worse disease if the vaccine recipients are exposed to the wild virus. Here are the results of the study:
"COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated. Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralising antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials."
Since the technocracy has a way of making things disappear from the internet in this post-truth era, here is a screen capture of the entire article:
The authors concluded that the specific risk of ADE linked to the COVID-19 vaccines should have been prominently and independently disclosed to research subjects in trials and for future patients after the vaccines are approved for use. Given that the current crop of COVID-19 vaccines are not scheduled for completion for at least another year and that they are currently being used under an Emergency Use Authorization, one would think that providing informed consent to all vaccine recipients would be critical.
In closing, as one example, let's look at the COVID-19 vaccine consent form for the State of New York:
This is the only warning given to vaccine recipients about the nature of the COVID-19 vaccine that they are about to receive:
Here is Walgreen's Informed Consent document for COVID-19 and other vaccines:
I wonder how many recipients actually read all of the fine print which, as you will notice, says nothing about ADE? Note that recipients are stating that they were given the "chance to ask questions which were answered to my satisfaction" and that they "understand the benefits and risks of the vaccination as described". How many laypeople actually understand the risks and benefits of the mRNA vaccine technology let alone know what questions to ask? How many laypeople understand that the "jab" could well lead to a greater susceptibility to ADE, making future exposures to the new variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus even riskier?
This study is the smoking gun in the COVID-19 narrative and is should be of particular interest to all of us given that it appears on the website of Anthony Fauci's employer. Recipients of COVID-19 vaccines are not properly being informed of the risks of antibody-dependent enhancement by governments, vaccine manufacturers, the mainstream media and public health officials. Most people have absolutely no concept of ADE and its potential impact on their future health and are being coerced into accepting an unproven vaccine with the promise of a return to societal normalcy by their governments (the carrot) and the threat of having their freedom restricted for the indefinite future (the stick), contradicting the very concept of informed consent.
One of the theories circulating during the current pandemic and the use of COVID-19 vaccines has been that the vaccines are laced with microchips as shown here:
That said, there is one technological aspect to vaccines that has received very little media coverage; the use of biometrics to track vaccination programs.
Let's start by looking at what biometrics are:
Biometrics are physical or behavioral human characteristics to that can be used to digitally identify a person to grant access to systems, devices or data.
A biometric identifier is one that is related to intrinsic human characteristics. They fall roughly into two categories: physical identifiers and behavioral identifiers. Physical identifiers are, for the most part, immutable and device independent and include fingerprints, photos and videos, physiological recognition (i.e. facial recognition), voice, signature, DNA, typing patterns, physical movements, navigation patterns and engagement patterns.
Here is more information on biometrics should you wish to learn more.
As I noted at the beginning of this posting, according to Biometricupdate.com, the nation of Ghana in Africa is set to become the first nation in the world to use contactless biometrics in a national vaccination program as shown here:
The Ghana Health Service is partnering with GAVI (The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations) and Arm to begin a biometric-based national vaccination program in October 2021 using contactless technology from Simprints.
Here is the announcement from Arm:
The announcement opens with this:
"For many people, receiving a COVID vaccine has been as simple as going online, entering their medical identification number, booking an appointment and turning up a few days or weeks later to get their shot. But for more than 1 billion people that have no formal ID, that is simply not possible.
Until now, COVID vaccination programs have focused on trying to achieve equitable access, first by ensuring distribution to all countries and then getting them out to those that most need them. This last mile – the journey from centralized distribution centers to clinics and, finally, the individuals – can be the most challenging. This is partly because of the supply chain logistics involved, such as keeping the vaccines at the right temperature to ensure they remain safe and effective, but also in terms of identifying who needs the vaccines.
Today, nearly one in four children under the age of five do not officially exist because their births are not registered. Most of these children live in low- and middle-income countries. Without reliable identity registration, it’s incredibly hard to know when people are missing out on vaccines or follow-up vaccinations.
In the case of COVID-19, this presents a serious challenge, as vaccine delivery is staggered by priority group and shots are mostly administered twice, with a specified interval in between. Childhood routine immunization is even more complex, involving multiple vaccines with different schedules. Vaccination cards or other tokens can record doses given and are often used as de facto identification, but they can easily be lost or misused.
Bringing forward new resources, ideas, and technologies has enabled GAVI to achieve considerable success in vaccinating the world’s children. To address the bottlenecks in equitable vaccine distribution we needed a way to bridge the information gap and create reliable digital healthcare records – even in the absence of formal identification."
Arm continues with this information on the "solution" to the problem of vaccinations in societies where personal identification is not readily available:
"A new strategic partnership between GAVI, Arm, and UK-based nonprofit Simprints provided an answer through a unique, contactless, digital identification solution that is accurate, scalable and cost-effective. Guided by GAVI's expertise in immunization, the project deploys Simprints’ biometrics solution with support from Arm’s technology, global network, and funding.
The solution uses a contactless method of identification to safely create a unique ID for each individual, allowing health workers in the field to identify patients accurately, and quickly create or access their record of care. The biometric data is securely collected using the health worker’s Android smartphone, while timestamps and GPS coordinates record the time and location of treatment. Where internet connectivity is poor or non-existent, offline mode can be used to access a previously downloaded database and new patient data is uploaded when connectivity is restored.
Vitally, Simprints’ solution focuses on the ethical and inclusive use of digital ID, ensuring it works for diverse populations with solid privacy protocols and patient protection at its core. The system is compatible with the digital health tools used by healthcare workers, governments, and global development practitioners around the world, and can be rapidly deployed and scaled on low-cost Android devices."
You will notice how many times GAVI is mentioned in the announcement. We'll understand why later in this posting.
As background, here is some information on Simprints:
"Our mission is to transform the way the world fights poverty. We build technology to radically increase transparency and effectiveness in global development, making sure that every vaccine, every dollar, every public good reaches the people who need them most."
Out of sheer curiosity, let's see who Simprint's strategic partners are:
Well, there's a shock! Like flies on a steaming turd, we find that both GAVI, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations which is heavily funded by Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation as shown here:
...and the Bill Gates and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation itself are two of Simprint's strategic partners.
Ghana is the pilot for the deployment of this new technology. This is the first time that contactless biometrics will be used in a nationwide immunization campaign and, according to Arm, could well become the foundation for "strong frontline personal healthcare". The system itself does not require an existing formal identity document, rather, a biometric identity will be created for individuals which will then be downloaded to health workers Android smartphones allowing them to continue to vaccinate individuals while offline and to upload the data when a connection to the internet becomes available. For the second dose of COVID-19 vaccines, the individual's biometrics will be verified to recall their health record and check to see that they should receive the second (or third....) dose of vaccine.
The announcement closes with this:
"At times when vaccine demand outstrips supply, it’s in everybody’s interest to ensure that these precious resources are administered to the right people, at the right place and at the right time. We need to minimize vaccine wastage since every vaccine dose lost is a step backward in our race towards normalcy.
The only way we will overcome the pandemic is by ensuring access to vaccines for everyone, everywhere – not just those lucky enough to have formal ID.
Working alongside partners like Arm, Simprints and the Ghana Ministry of Health, we are excited to help build the digital infrastructure required to serve every patient and lay the foundations for healthcare for all."
This all sounds wonderful, doesn't it? A poor developing nation now has access to the latest in vaccination and health record technology thanks to the unfettered generosity of Bill Gates and other donors, some of which have considerable "skin in the digital identification game" as shown here:
...and here, also noting GAVI's involvement once again:
The downside is that this is just another piece of the puzzle when it comes to e-health records which will be an important part of the universal immunity passports being foisted on an unsuspecting world as governments formulate their totalitarian responses to life and "freedom" in the post-pandemic world.
In this recently published document:
...Public Health England provides us with some interesting information on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness. Let's take a close look at the findings of the authors.
The report looks at 60,624 Delta variant infections between February 1, and June 14, 2021. Here is a table showing vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic disease for the Alpha and Delta variants combined for doses 1 and 2:
Here is a table showing vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization for the Alpha and Delta variants for doses 1 and 2:
The data would certainly appear to suggest that the COVID-19 vaccines have been quite effective (particularly after the second dose) at reducing symptoms and hospitalizations although the effectiveness of the current COVID-19 vaccines are less effective at preventing symptomatic disease related to the Delta variant than they are for the Alpha variant.
Here is the most interesting table which shows the number of delta cases which either died or required emergency care between February 1, 2021 and June 14, 2021 among unvaccinated, people who were vaccinated with one dose 21 or less days previously, one dose 21 or more days previously and those who were fully vaccinated 14 days or more previously:
A total of 35,521 Delta variant cases were among the unvaccinated compared to 4,087 cases which were fully vaccinated. That said, it is somewhat concerning that there were thousands of cases of the Delta variant despite the fact that the individuals were fully vaccinated at least two weeks prior to the test.
Let's compare the hospitalization rates for the unvaccinated versus the fully vaccinated:
Unvaccinated - 35,521 people with 527 or 1.48 percent required hospitalization
Fully Vaccinated - 4,087 people with 84 or 2.05 percent required hospitalization
Now, let's compare the death rates for the unvaccinated versus the fully vaccinated:
Unvaccinated - 35,521 people with 34 or 0.133 percent dying
Fully Vaccinated - 4,087 people with 26 or 0.636 percent dying
As you can see, when it comes to the Delta variant, while there are far more infections among the unvaccinated, those who are infected and unvaccinated are less likely to require hospitalization and nearly 5 times less likely to die than their vaccinated peers.
Now, let's look at a study from 2012 where laboratory animals were injected with experimental coronavirus vaccines after SARS emerged in China in 2002:
In this study, a variety of potential candidate coronavirus vaccines for humans with or without alum adjuvant were tested; a VLP (virus-like particle) vaccine, an NHP whole virus vaccine and an rDNA-produced S protein vaccines. The vaccines were injected into both ferrets and mice. All of the vaccines induced serum neutralizing antibodies with increasing dosages and the presence of alum, resulting in significantly increased responses.
Here are the results as quoted from the study with challenge meaning that the mice were exposed to the live SARS-CoV virus:
"Significant reductions of SARS-CoV two days after challenge was seen for all vaccines and prior live SARS-CoV. All mice exhibited histopathologic changes in lungs two days after challenge including all animals vaccinated (Balb/C and C57BL/6) or given live virus, influenza vaccine, or PBS suggesting infection occurred in all."
Here are the conclusions of the study:
"These SARS-CoV vaccines all induced antibody and protection against infection with SARS-CoV. However, challenge of mice given any of the vaccines led to occurrence of Th2-type immunopathology suggesting hypersensitivity to SARS-CoV components was induced. Caution in proceeding to application of a SARS-CoV vaccine in humans is indicated.
In other words, the animals that were injected with these experimental coronavirus vaccines developed enhanced lung disease because the vaccines induced hypersensitivity to the components of SARS-Co-V.
Since the current crop of COVID-19 vaccines is still in Phase 3 trials no matter what we are being led to believe, governments, the media and Big Pharma have no idea whether the same enhancement will occur in humans. If so, this may be at least a partial explanation for the findings in England where fully vaccinated individuals who contract the Delta variant of the COVID-19 virus have a higher hospitalization and death rate than those who are not vaccinated. If so, this is a very concerning issue, particularly given that billions of doses are now "resident" in human beings around the world.
As I've stated before, during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is of utmost importance that we all "follow the money". It's the only way to unravel the ever-complicated narrative that has evolved over the past 16 months. One of the key aspects of the issue is to track the allegiances and connections that key players have to each other. As you will see in this posting, a prime example can be found simply by looking at the connections that the Members of the Board of Directors at Pfizer have to other key players in the "COVID game".
Here is a graphic showing the Board as a whole
Now, let's focus on three members:
1.) Noting that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the gatekeeper that stands between our safety and the products being promoted by Big Pharma, here is the CV for Pfizer board member Scott Gottlieb:
2.) Noting that Bill Gates, the world's pre-eminent untrained vaccinologist and epidemiologist, has the goal to vaccinate the entire world, hasn't yet seen a health condition that a vaccine couldn't fix and that he is the co-founder of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the second largest financial supporter of the World Health Organization, that the World Economic Forum is the architect and promoter of the dystopic post-pandemic Great Reset and that Facebook has been one of the gatekeepers of the pro-vaccine narrative, here is the CV for Pfizer board member Susan Desmond-Hellmann:
3.) Noting that the mainstream media has essentially been the mouthpiece of governments during the pandemic, that they have taken it upon themselves to create and disseminate COVID-19 fear porn and promote experimental COVID-19 vaccines 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and that Thompson Reuters is the world's leading provider of news and claims to be one of the "world's most trusted providers of answers", here is the CV for Pfizer board member James Smith:
Piece by piece, the puzzle comes together. While I am well aware that most major corporations want to attract board "talent" that will assist in promoting their business, the links between three of Pfizer's board members, the FDA, Facebook, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the WEF and Thompson Reuters is what can only be termed "an amazing coincidence".
A recent data release from a presentation at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides COVID-19 vaccine consumers with some rather concerning data, particularly if they are under the age of 30.
Let's start with some background. Here is a graph from the CDC showing the weekly number of COVID-19 deaths for the age group 15 years to 24 years in brown and 25 years to 34 years in turquoise:
Here is a table showing how many Americans of varying age groups have died from COVID-19, pneumonia or influenza:
Note that only 2,704 Americans under the age of 30 had deaths that "involved COVID-19" or less than 0.46 percent of "COVID-19-involved" deaths for all age groups.
In the latest COVID-19 Pandemic Planning Scenario from the CDC dated March 19, 2021, we find the following table:
Note that the best estimate infection fatality ratio (IFR) for children between the ages of 0 and 17 years is 0.002 percent (20/1,000,000) and for people between the ages of 18 and 49 years, the best estimate infection fatality ratio is 0.05 percent (500/1,000,000).
Now, let's switch subjects and look at some additional physiological background to help us put this posting into context. Here are two definitions from the Mayo Clinic:
Overview - Myocarditis is an inflammation of the heart muscle (myocardium). Myocarditis can affect your heart muscle and your heart's electrical system, reducing your heart's ability to pump and causing rapid or abnormal heart rhythms (arrhythmias).
A viral infection usually causes myocarditis, but it can result from a reaction to a drug or be part of a more general inflammatory condition. Signs and symptoms include chest pain, fatigue, shortness of breath, and arrhythmias.
Severe myocarditis weakens your heart so that the rest of your body doesn't get enough blood. Clots can form in your heart, leading to a stroke or heart attack.
Complications - Severe myocarditis can permanently damage heart muscles and cause the following:
1.) Heart failure. Untreated, myocarditis can damage your heart's muscle so that it can't pump blood effectively. In severe cases, myocarditis-related heart failure may require a ventricular assist device or a heart transplant.
2.) Heart attack or stroke. If your heart's muscle is injured and can't pump blood, the blood that pools in your heart can form clots. If a clot blocks one of your heart's arteries, you can have a heart attack. If a blood clot in your heart travels to an artery leading to your brain before becoming lodged, you can have a stroke.
3.) Rapid or abnormal heart rhythms (arrhythmias). Damage to your heart muscle can cause arrhythmias.
Sudden cardiac death. Certain serious arrhythmias can cause your heart to stop beating (sudden cardiac arrest). It's fatal if not treated immediately.
Here is a graphic showing myocarditis:
Overview - Pericarditis is swelling and irritation of the thin, saclike tissue surrounding your heart (pericardium). Pericarditis often causes sharp chest pain and sometimes other symptoms. The chest pain occurs when the irritated layers of the pericardium rub against each other.
Pericarditis is usually mild and goes away without treatment. Treatment for more-severe cases may include medications and, rarely, surgery. Early diagnosis and treatment may help reduce the risk of long-term complications from pericarditis.
Complications - Early diagnosis and treatment of pericarditis usually reduces the risk of the long-term complications. Complications of pericarditis include:
1.) Pericardial effusion. Pericarditis is usually associated with fluid around the heart, which can lead to more serious complications.
2.) Chronic constrictive pericarditis. Some people with long-term (chronic) pericarditis develop permanent thickening and scarring of the pericardium, which prevents the heart from filling and emptying properly. This unusual complication often leads to severe swelling of the legs and abdomen and shortness of breath.
3.) Cardiac tamponade. This life-threatening condition can develop when too much fluid collects in the pericardium. Excess fluid puts pressure on the heart and doesn't allow it to fill properly. Less blood leaves the heart, causing a dramatic drop in blood pressure. Cardiac tamponade requires emergency treatment.
Here is a diagram showing pericarditis:
Now, let's look at the recent data release from the CDC from a COVID-19 vaccine safety update presentation on June 23, 2021by the Vaccine Safety Team. In this presentation, the author is looking at these two issues:
Here is a graph showing the preliminary reports of myocarditis/pericarditis for the mRNA vaccines by age and number of doses of vaccine:
Here are the symptoms experienced by the individuals under the age of 30:
Here is a graphic showing the number of cases of myocarditis/pericarditis following dose 2 of the mRNA vaccines for both males and females for all age groups. Note that the "expected" column is based on a U.S. population-based background incidence rate of myocarditis/pericarditis that was used in the safety assessment of the COVID-19 vaccines:
As you can see, among males under the age of 40 who have received the second mRNA vaccination, there is a significantly higher number of cases of myocarditis/pericarditis than expected, particularly among those between the ages of 12 and 24 (inclusive). The background rate would have predicted between 1 and 12 case of myocarditis/pericarditis for this age group, however, real world reports to the CDC's Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) observed 347 cases or 28.9 times more cases than predicted.
Let's close this posting with a quote from this recent article found in the British Medical Journal dated June 23, 2021:
"On 23 June the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s safety committee said there was a “likely association” between the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna covid-19 vaccines and myocarditis and pericarditis in some young adults. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices said there was a higher than expected number of reports of heart inflammation in people aged 16-24 who had received the mRNA vaccines but that the benefits of vaccination still clearly outweighed the risks.
The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) had received 1226 preliminary reports of myocarditis and pericarditis after about 300 million doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines up to 11 June. The US Food and Drug Administration said it would add a warning about the risk to information sheets for the mRNA covid vaccines. A joint statement signed by the US Department of Health and Human Services, the CDC, and medical organizations such as the American College of Physicians and American Medical Association emphasized that the side effect was “extremely rare” and that most cases were mild.
In the US the confirmed cases have mostly been seen in male adolescents and young adults and occur more often after the second dose than the first. CDC data showed that after 3 625 574 second doses administered to men aged 18-24 there were 233 reports of myocarditis or pericarditis, when two to 25 would have been expected. After 5 237 262 doses administered to women in this age group 27 cases were seen, against an expected two to 18. Vinay Prasad, a haematologist-oncologist and associate professor in the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California San Francisco, told The BMJ “There is a clear and large safety signal in young men and a clear but small signal in young women as well.”
While the USDA will add a warning to the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine information sheets, it is highly unlikely that these sheets will be seen by any of the young Americans being vaccinated.
While this may seem like a small number of cases given the millions of COVID-19 vaccine doses that have been administered to young Americans, the occurrence of myocarditis has the potential to result in a life-changing, negative health situation for an age group that had a negligible risk of dying from COVID-19 in the first place. For the youngest among the mRNA vaccine recipients, the occurrence of vaccine-related myocarditis could have a very palpable impact on their parents as well. While it is still unclear whether this serious adverse event is caused by the mRNA vaccines or merely associated with them, the purpose of vaccines is to benefit the person who gets it and not result in "net harm".
Given the ever-changing narrative on COVID-19 vaccines, it is almost impossible for a layperson to understand exactly what is safe and what is part of the ongoing Phase 3 trials. A recent graphic found on the website of the School of Pharmacy at the University of Waterloo adds to that confusion, particularly given that mixing and matching of vaccines was NOT part of the original vaccine program.
Here is the graphic which is supposed to allow vaccine consumers to determine whether they are fully vaccinated:
Basically, the graphic is telling laypeople that they should not be getting the AstraZeneca vaccine as their second dose unless they received it as their first dose and that either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines are suitable as a second dose if they received the AstraZeneca vaccine as their first dose.
Given that these vaccines are still being rolled out and that the final phase three trials for the stand-alone products (i.e. without mixing and matching) will not end until the following dates:
...and that the medium- and long-term side effects and efficacy of each of the vaccines on a stand-alone basis have yet to be fully understood and shared with governments, public health officials and consumers, it is concerning that governments are basically allowing Big Pharma to continue their unprecedented vaccine experiment on humanity by both extending the period of time between doses far beyond what the manufacturer recommended and allowing the mixing and matching of COVID-19 vaccines all in the name of vaccinating as much of the world as possible as quickly as possible.
While India is garnering the mainstream media's ceaseless attention to all things COVID, there are a couple of things that we need to consider.
First, here is a graph from Our World In Data showing the number of cumulative COVID-19-related deaths per million people for the United States, the United Kingdom and India:
As you can see, India totally missed the first and second waves of COVID-19-related deaths which peaked at 0.18 percent in the United Kingdom in January 2021, 0.104 percent in the United States also in January 2021. Currently, India's COVID-19 death rate is 0.018 percent, roughly one-tenth of the peak death rate of the United Kingdom. Certainly, the death rate in India will increase as time passes but, as you can see, currently it is well below the rates experienced in two of the world's most affected nations and, as shown here, has relatively little to do with where the advanced economies of the world are headed. Interestingly, we'll never see this reported in the mainstream media.
As well, thanks to the internet archive, here is a screen capture taken from a sad and rather alarming story that appeared in the New York Post on April 26, 2021:
Here is a closeup of the photo which appeared in the article purporting to show an Indian woman "dying" in the street of COVID-19:
Oddly enough, you can see the same woman wearing purple clothing lying on the sidewalk while the young woman in the multi-coloured top and white pants with a dark stripe in this photo:
The only problem is that this photo was found in a news story on Sky News dated May 7, 2020 reporting on a gas leak at an LG Polymers plant located in Andhra Pradesh:
So, either the same ill woman in India was lying on the sidewalk wearing the same clothing and being attended to by the same young woman nearly 12 months ago as a result of a gas leak and was ill yet again in late April 2021 due to COVID-19 or the mainstream media is lying to us or just doing sloppy reporting.
Fortunately for us all, the New York Post posted this small retraction at the bottom of the edited story, blaming Reuters for their misstep/sloppiness:
This begs the question; how often has this happened in the past year when it comes to reportage on the pandemic?
If there is one thing that the world has taught us in the past year it's that we are living in a post-truth era where the mainstream media has become a big part of propagating a false, government-created narrative that is being used to stoke fear and keep us all in line.
While public health officials and governments around the world are hard-selling us the COVID-19 variant fear porn in an effort to keep us under control, in fact, as you will see in this posting, the original SARS-CoV-2 virus has been evolving over the past year.
From the CDC website, here is a description of the three SARS-CoV-2 variants that have been detected in the United States and other nations around the world along with the date and location of first detection in the United States:
1.) The B.1.1.7 variant was first detected in the United Kingdom in December 2020 and likely first emerged there in September 2020. Colorado reported the first U.S. case of the B.1.1.7 variant in late December 2020. Since then, B.1.1.7 has been detected in at least 42 jurisdictions. Preliminary data from the United Kingdom suggest that the B.1.1.7 variant spreads more easily and may cause more severe disease than previous variants of SARS-CoV-2.4
2.) The B.1.351 variant was first detected in the Republic of South Africa in December 2020, and likely first emerged there in October 2020. At least 35 countries, including the United States, have detected COVID-19 cases of infection with the B.1.351 variant. The first detected U.S. cases of infection with the B.1.351 variant occurred in South Carolina and Maryland in late January 2021 and have now been documented in at least 10 jurisdictions. Some data suggest that people previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 may have less immune protection if they are re-infected with the B.1.351 variant.
3.) The P.1 variant was first detected in Japan in travelers from Brazil in January 2021. Minnesota reported the first U.S. case of infection with the P.1 variant in January 2021 and P.1 has now been identified in Oklahoma, Maryland, and Florida.
So far, this many cases of each variant have been discovered in the United States:
Now, let's look at additional information about the evolution of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Let's start by looking at the concept of phylogeny. According to an article on ThoughtCo, phylogeny attempts to trace the evolutionary history of all life on earth. More specifically, phylogeny looks at the relationship among organisms as indicated by the use of genetic comparisons. A phylogeny is represented in a diagram known as a phylogenetic tree with the branches of the tree representing ancestral or descendent lineages, much like a human family tree. Relatedness in a phylogenic tree is determined by descent from a common ancestor. Here is a link to a very basic description of phylogeny and how it is used to classify organisms.
With that background, let's look at the phylogeny of the SARS-CoV-2 virus as reported on the Nextstrain website. Here is a graphic showing the very complex phylogeny of the SARS-CoV-2 virus:
The horizontal lines on this graphic show the genetic relationships between each of the variants and depict how closely related the viruses are to each other with the longer horizontal lines meaning that there are more differences between them. As you can see, since SARS-CoV-2 first appeared in December 2019, the virus has undergone significant evolution.
Here is a map showing the geographical spread of the evolution of the SARS-CoV-2 virus:
Let's look at a quote from the Nextstrain website regarding these graphics:
"This phylogeny shows evolutionary relationships of SARS-CoV-2 viruses from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Although the genetic relationships among sampled viruses are quite clear, there is considerable uncertainty surrounding estimates of specific transmission dates and in reconstruction of geographic spread. Please be aware that specific inferred geographic transmission patterns and temporal estimates are only a hypothesis.
There are hundreds of thousands of complete SARS-CoV-2 genomes available and this number increases every day. This visualization can only handle ~3000 genomes in a single view for performance and legibility reasons. Because of this we subsample available genome data for these analysis views. Our primary global analysis subsamples to ~600 genomes per continental region with ~400 from the previous 4 months and ~200 from before this. This results in a more equitable global sequence distribution, but hides samples available from regions that are doing lots of sequencing. To mitigate against this, we've set up separate analyses to focus on particular regions. They are available on the "Dataset" dropdown on the left or by clicking on the following links: Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, Oceania and South America.
Site numbering and genome structure uses Wuhan-Hu-1/2019 as reference. The phylogeny is rooted relative to early samples from Wuhan."
Let's close with a quote from an article by Erin Garcia de Jesus from Sciencenews.org:
"Viruses are always changing. When a virus infects a cell, it begins making copies of its genetic instructions. Most viruses don’t have the necessary tools to proofread each string of RNA for mistakes, so the process is error-prone and differences build up over time.
Coronaviruses like SARS-CoV-2, on the other hand, do have a proofreading enzyme — a rarity for RNA viruses. But that doesn’t mean their genomes don’t have errors. Changes still accumulate, just more slowly than in other RNA viruses such as influenza. “Strains,” “variants” or “lineages” are all terms researchers might use to describe viruses that have identical or closely related strings of RNA.
But for the general public, a word like “strain” is often interpreted to mean a whole new scourge. “I think the use of the term ‘strain’ does little more than cause panic,” says Jeremy Luban, a virologist at the University of Massachusetts Medical School in Worcester. “It doesn’t really get at what the important issues are.”
A mutation can affect a virus in a number of ways, but only certain kinds of mutations might make the virus more dangerous to people. Perhaps the change shields the virus from the immune system, or makes it resistant to treatments. Mutations could also alter how easily the virus spreads among people or cause shifts in disease severity.
Luckily, such mutations are rare. Unfortunately, they can be hard to identify."
There have been preliminary studies on the new variants:
1.) P.1 variant - research here which states that "_T_he recent emergence of variants with multiple shared mutations in spike raises concern about convergent evolution to a new phenotype, potentially associated with an increase in transmissibility or propensity for re-infection of individuals."
2.) Notes from a January 21, 2021 meeting of the U.K.'s influential Committee New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Groups (NERVTAG) quoted modelling papers that have not yet been published. Minutes of the meeting show this:
Studying viral mutations is a long and complicated process and is well beyond the intellectual capabilities of most of our elected leaders. In order to understand whether a viral mutation is dangerous to humans, animal or human studies are necessary and these studies take time. Given the hasty response to the current variants suggests that governments are using the appearance of new strains of the SARS-CoV-2 virus to bolster their fear porn-based agendas when, in fact, viruses have mutated for millennia.
The war that is pretty much ignored by the mainstream media, particularly in the United States, just passed a milestone although you'd be hard-pressed to learn anything about it.
According toan analysis by the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Projector ACLED, the war in Yemen has now resulted in the deaths of over 100,000 people and more than 40,000 conflict events have taken place since 2015. Here is a breakdown:
1.) approximately 20,000 fatalities have been reported so far in 2019 - this is the second most deadly year after 2018.
2.) approximately 8,000 fatalities have been reported so far in 2019 - the number of conflict events has dropped since March 2019 thanks to a drop in the number of shellings and airstrikes however the actual number of battles has not decreased.
3.) April was the most deadly month in 2019 with over 2,500 reported fatalities compared to "only" 1,700 in September. The third quarter of 2019 has seen the lowest number of reported fatalities since the end of 2017 due to a decline in battle intensity.
4.) the number of coalition airstrikes has declined over the past year while Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia increased until the group announced a unilateral ceasefire against targets inside Saudi Arabian territory in September 2019. It is important to note that the Saudis only partially accepted the ceasefire and continue to conduct attacks inside Yemen.
The impact on civilians has been significant. Since 2015, ACLED has tracked approximately 4900 attacks that directly targeted civilians resulting in more than 12,000 civilian deaths; so far in 2019, there have been approximately 1,100 civilian deaths. The Saudi-led coalition is responsible for over 8,000 of directly targeted civilian deaths and the Houthis are responsible for over 2,000 civilian deaths from direct targeting.
Here is a map of Yemen showing the events that have resulted in 30 or more deaths so far in 2019:
Thanks to the Yemen Data Project, we also have statistics showing the impact of coalition air raids on Yemen and its civilians. According to their statistics, 20,824 coalition air raids have resulted in the deaths of 8,632 civilians and injuries to 9,714 civilians. Here is a graphic showing the number of air raids per governorate in Yemen:
Here is a graphic showing the timeline of the coalition air raids and the number of air raids per month:
Here is a graphic showing the number of attacks against various types of non-military infrastructure:
With Saudi Arabia playing a leading role in the coalition fighting in Yemen, let's close this rather sobering look at one of the world's least reported wars withthis:
You will notice that the vast majority of the Royal Saudi Air Force fighter inventory is comprised of F-15S/SA and F-15C manufactured by Boeing (formerly McDonnell Douglas) strike fighters, followed by Tornado IDS strike fighters manufactured by a European consortium and Typhoon strike fighters, also manufactured by a European consortium. In other words, the United States defense industry is largely responsible for supplying the Saudi Royal Family with the means to kill thousands of innocent Yemeni civilians. But, one thing we know for certain, Washington will go on rubber-stamping the sale of American fighter jets to their second-best friends in the Middle East, civilian deaths be damned.
While most of us have completely forgotten the events of the Middle East war that took place during the 1980s, the war is still front of mind in Iran, particularly during this time of conflict with the United States and the West in general.
Let's open with this map showing the point of conflict that started the 1980s war between Iraq and Iran:
The key and most disputed body of water in this map is the Shatt al Arab, a river/estuary that is formed by the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers and is a body of water that forms Iraq's only access to the Persian Gulf. In 1847, a treaty was signed between Iran and Iraq (then the Ottoman Empire) establishing the Shatt as a boundary between the two nations. Both nations agreed to respect each others' freedom of navigation in the waterway and Iran received control of two cities, Khorramshahr and Abadan. During the British Mandate of Iraq between 1920 and 1932, the boundary between the two nations was drawn along the deepest point of the Shatt (i.e. the thalweg). In 1937, a treaty recognized the low-water mark on the east side of the river which gave control of almost the entire water body to Iraq. This meant that Iranian ships, which comprised most of the shipping traffic on the river, had to pay tolls to Iraq when they used the Shatt. Under the Shah's rule, Iran had a far stronger military presence and argued that the 1937 boundary was unfair; as such, in April 1969, an Iranian tanker accompanied by Iranian warships sailed down the Shatt with no reaction from the weaker Iraqis. Tension and disagreements continued until a new agreement, the Algiers Accord, was signed in 1975 after a number of border skirmishes which determined that the thalweg of the Shatt was the boundary between Iran and Iraq as shown here:
Even though it was very clear that Iraq had unilaterally invaded Iranian sovereign territory, under Resolution 479 (1980), the United Nations chose to blame both nations for the "threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State". This sent a message to Iran that they were on their own against Saddam Hussein.
This relatively recent event has shown Iran's leadership that they must be prepared to defend themselves from outside attacks. Despite the proclamation by the United Nations, member states including the United States continued to back the aggressor, Saddam Hussein, in the lengthy battle against Iran, a war that cost hundreds of thousands of Iranian lives. Is it any wonder that Iran seeks to protect itself through the development of advanced weaponry? Iranians learned a very painful and costly lesson about who they could count on to defend their sovereignty during the 1980s.
Last year's news that Monsanto/Bayer was successfully sued by a California man over its glyphosate-containing product, Roundup, shook the company badly. Lawyers for Dewayne Johnson claimed that exposure to glyphosate caused his cancer, a claim that is not unique given that over 800 cancer patients are suing Monsanto over similar claims. This follows a 2015 report by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) which found that the organophosphate pesticides glyphosate, malathion and diazinon "may be carcinogenic to humans" as shown here:￼
Here, for your illumination, is a commercial for Roundup's Extended Control product.
Please notice how the gentleman in the advertisement is not using any form of protection (i.e. gloves or a mask) while applying the product. While this is sending a concerning message to consumers, it appears to be the least of the problems that Roundup has created for mankind.
According to a 2016 paper by Charles Benbrook, Roundup is now the most widely and heavily applied weed-killer in history. Here is a summary showing how much Roundup has been used since it was first introduced for commercial use in 1974 from his paper:
"Since 1974 in the U.S., over 1.6 billion kilograms of glyphosate active ingredient have been applied, or 19 % of estimated global use of glyphosate (8.6 billion kilograms). Globally, glyphosate use has risen almost 15-fold since so-called “Roundup Ready,” genetically engineered glyphosate-tolerant crops were introduced in 1996. Two-thirds of the total volume of glyphosate applied in the U.S. from 1974 to 2014 has been sprayed in just the last 10 years. The corresponding share globally is 72 %. In 2014, farmers sprayed enough glyphosate to apply ~1.0 kg/ha (0.8 pound/acre) on every hectare of U.S.-cultivated cropland and nearly 0.53 kg/ha (0.47 pounds/acre) on all cropland worldwide."
Back in December 2008, WikiLeaks released a relatively little-noted document "US Army Special Operations Forces Unconventional Warfare". This 248-page, nine chapter publication was the September 2008 revision of the U.S. Army Field Manual 3-05.130, the keystone doctrine for Army special operations forces operations in unconventional warfare.
This document defines unconventional warfare as:
"Operations conducted by, with or through irregular forces against a variety of state and no-state opponents."
These operations are conducted:
"...in support of a resistance movement, an insurgency, and ongoing or pending conventional military operations"
Such operations have the following common conceptual core:
"...working by, with, or through irregular surrogates in a clandestine and/or covert manner against opposing actors."
In Chapter 2, the document outlines the instruments of United States national power which help the United States to achieve its national strategic objectives. These instruments of national power include diplomacy, information, intelligence, economic, financial, law enforcement and military. For the purposes of this posting, let's focus on one of these instruments as follows, the Financial Instrument of National Power . Here's how the document describes this instrument:
"The financial instrument of national power promotes the conditions for prosperity and stability in the United States and encourages prosperity and stability in the rest of the world. The Department of the Treasury (Treasury) is the primary federal agency responsible for the economic and financial prosperity and security of the United States and as such is responsible for a wide range of activities, including advising the President on economic and financial issues, promoting the President’s growth agenda, and enhancing corporate governance in financial institutions. In the international arena, the Treasury works with other federal agencies, the governments of other nations, and the international financial institutions to encourage economic growth; raise standards of living; and predict and prevent, to the extent possible, economic and financial crises."
"The application of economic or financial incentives is among the most powerful ideas in the U.S. arsenal of power. Although some U.S. adversaries are irreconcilable to accommodation with U.S. interests and must be engaged in other ways, many declared or potential adversaries can be persuaded or dissuaded by economic or financial means to become declared or potential allies (or at least neutralized)…the ability of the United States government to affect the economic environment is enormous, and it has economic weapons at its disposal. Unconventional warfare planners must carefully coordinate the introduction and withholding of economic and financial assets into the Unconventional Warfare Operational Area (UWOA) with their interagency partners. For example, direct application of USAID grants to specific human groups can alter negative behaviors or cement positive affiliations. At the highest levels of diplomatic and financial interaction, the United States Government’s ability to influence international financial institutions—with corresponding effects to exchange rates, interest rates, credit availability, and money supplies—can cement multinational coalitions for unconventional warfare campaigns or dissuade adversary nation-state governments from supporting specific actors in the UWOA."
As you can see, the United States is willing to use financial blackmail including exchange and interest rate manipulation, credit availability and the supply of money to either persuade certain nations to join its unconventional warfare campaign or to dissuade adversarial nations from supporting the "other side" of an unconventional warfare strategy.
Here is a screen capture of page 2-8 of the document outlining how the United States can use financial incentives to manipulate other nations (ARSOF = Army Special Operations Forces and UW = Unconventional Warfare, DOS = Department of State, IC = Intelligence Community):
Note this sentence:
"Government can apply unilateral and indirect financial power through persuasive influence to international and domestic financial institutions regarding availability and terms of loans, grants, or other financial assistance to foreign state and nonstate actors."
It is also interesting to note that the document clearly states that the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and Bank for International Settlements are basically functioning as organizations that Washington can use to drive its global agenda and as yet another tool in America's quest for global hegemony. This isn't terribly surprising in the case of the World Bank since we find the following on its website.
In addition, the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control whose sole responsibility is as follows:
"...to administer and enforce economic and trade sanctions based on U.S. foreign policy and national security goals against targeted foreign countries and regimes, terrorists, international narcotics traffickers, those engaged in activities related to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and other threats the national security..."
...has a "long history of conducting economic warfare valuation to any Army Special Operations Forces unconventional warfare.".
This Army manual, leaked over a decade ago by WikiLeaks, gives us a very clear view of how Washington uses financial manipulation through its influence on the World Bank, IMF, OECD and other "global" groups to wage unconventional warfare on any nation that doesn't share its view of how the world should function and that threatens America's control of the globe. The use of financial blackmail to bend countries to America's narrative and overthrow nations who do not succumb to America's wishes is not terribly surprising, however, it is interesting to actually see one key aspect of Washington's unconventional warfare methodology in print.
With both Ms. Wilson-Raybould and Ms. Philpott being "non-persons" in the views of the Liberal Party of Canada and with the Trudeau government repeatedly assuring us that they are alway mindful of the rule of law, let's take a look at some pertinent legislation from 2014.
Under the Reform Act, 2014 also known as an amendment to the Canada Elections Act and the Parliament of Canada Act (candidacy and caucus reforms)which was assented to law on June 23, 2015, we find the following:
"Whereas Members of Parliament are elected by their constituents to represent them in the Parliament of Canada;
Definition of “caucus”
49.1 In this Division, “caucus” means a group composed solely of members of the House of Commons who are members of the same recognized party.
Expulsion of caucus member
49.2 A member of a caucus may only be expelled from it if
- (a) the caucus chair has received a written notice signed by at least 20% of the members of the caucus requesting that the member’s membership be reviewed; and
- (b) the expulsion of the member is approved by secret ballot by a majority of all caucus members."
This law was put into place to protect voters and maintain democracy. Without the law, a vindictive party leader could remove members of his or her caucus simply because they disagree with his or her stance on any given issue, thereby disenfranchising thousands of voters.
Notice how clear the requirements for expulsion from caucus are defined and how little room there is for interpretation by a misguided party leader. At least 20 percent of the members of the Liberal caucus must supply the caucus chair with a written notice; in the current Parliament, prior to the expulsion of the two aforementioned members, there were 179 Liberal members meaning that no less than 36 had to supply written notice to the Liberal caucus chair. As well, the expulsion of the member must be approved by a simple majority of the entire membership of the caucus (i.e. not just the ones that are present at the time of the vote). Given that there are 177 Liberal members in the caucus, at least 90 members would have had to vote to remove both Ms. Wilson-Raybould and Ms. Philpott from the Liberal caucus.
So, given that we know that Justin Trudeau made the decision on his own (by his own admission) as we see in this excerpt from his speech to his caucus on April 2, 2019:
"That's why I made the very difficult decision to remove Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott."
So, what did the Liberals have to say about this breach of law? Here's what Francis Scarpaleggia, Chair of the National Liberal Caucus had to say after clearly admitting that the Liberal caucus did NOT vote to expel Ms. Wilson-Raybould and Ms. Philpott
"That's not the way that we do things in the national Liberal caucus. We don't vote typically. We never opted into the rules that were suggested by the Conservative private member's bill by Michael Chong. We operate by convention and our party's convention is that membership in the caucus is determined by the leader of the party informed by caucus."
Pardon me if I'm wrong, but the rules aren't "suggested", they are part of the law as you read at the beginning of this posting. Obeying the law is not optional.
Those of us who live in the West generally only get small glimpses into the Russian mindset, so it is not terribly surprising that the Kremlin's response to the recent news that Washington was pulling out of the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Elimination of their Immediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles aka the INF Treaty received almost no coverage even though the Kremlin's full response is available on the English language version of its website.
Here are some highlights from the Kremlin's response which was crafted during a high level meeting between Vladimir Putin, Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russia's Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu. Russia has some very pressing concerns about recent developments in the United States nuclear weapons program:
Another matter of concern for us is that only recently, just a year ago, the United States in its 2018 Nuclear Posture Review set the task of developing low-yield nuclear weapons, and it is probable that intermediate-range missiles will serve as a means of delivery for these weapons. It was also announced only recently that this provision of the US nuclear doctrine is beginning to materialise with missiles of this kind entering production.
According to the Kremlin, Russia has its own version of the evolution of America's nuclear philosophy and how it has handled its obligations under three key nuclear weapons treaties:
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM)
It all started with the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, when the US decided to withdraw from it in 2002, as you know all too well. This was done despite numerous initiatives by the Russian Federation at the UN General Assembly to save the ABM Treaty. The UN General Assembly passed a number of resolutions supporting the ABM Treaty. However, this did not stop the United States from withdrawing from it.
As a partial replacement for the ABM Treaty, the US and Russia signed a joint declaration that same year, 2002, on new strategic relations with a promise to settle all issues related to the so-called third positioning area of the missile-defence system being deployed in Europe at the time. The declaration provided for holding consultations as a way to reach common ground. This did not happen due to the unwillingness of the United States to take up Russia’s concerns in earnest.
In 2007, we made another gesture of good will at your instructions by coming forward with an initiative that consisted of working together to resolve the problems related to US missile defence system’s third positioning area in Europe. Once again, the US backed out of this proposal.
However, at the Russia-NATO Summit in Lisbon in 2010, we once again called for Russia, the US and Europe to work together on a continental missile-defence system. This call was not heeded. Nevertheless, two years later, in 2012, at the NATO Summit in Chicago it was NATO that called for dialogue with Russia on missile defence. However, all this good will boiled down to the US insisting that we simply come to terms with their missile defence approach, despite all the obvious risks and threats to our security posed by this approach.
Let me remind you that in 2013 Russia once again called on the US Department of State to open consultations, and came forward with concrete proposals. There was no reply. And in 2014, the United States brought the dialogue on missile defence to a halt and declared the intention to deploy its positioning areas in Europe and Asia, while also strengthening other systems, including in Alaska and on the east coast.
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)
Talking about other essential international security and strategic stability instruments, the approach adopted by the United States to performing its commitments under the universal Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons has been a matter of concern for Russia. In fact, despite numerous reminders on our part, the United States commits serious violations of the Treaty in its actions within NATO. The Treaty commits nuclear powers to refrain from transferring the corresponding nuclear technologies.
Despite these provisions, NATO engages in so-called joint nuclear missions whereby the United States together with five NATO countries where US nuclear weapons are deployed conduct nuclear weapons drills with countries that are not part of the five nuclear-weapons states. This is a direct violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT)
Another treaty that had a special role in removing the threat of nuclear war, or, to be more precise, whose preparation was a source of hope for addressing these threats, was the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty [CTBT]. The United States did not ratify it even though doing so was among Barack Obama’s campaign promises when he ran for president.
Right now, this instrument is completely off the radar, since the United States has lost all interest in any consultations on joining this Treaty. Being a party to the CTBT and acting in good faith, Russia holds special events at the UN General Assembly every year in order to promote the Treaty and mobilise public opinion in favour of its entry into force, which requires the United States to join it, among other things.
On December 20, 2018, Russia's President Vladimir Putin held his annual press conference, his fourteenth and first of his new term in office. The event was held at Moscow's World Trade Center and ran for nearly 3 hours and 45 minutes. This year, the event was attended by a record 1700 journalists from Russia, Asia, Europe and the United States, up from 1640 in 2017.
Here is a link to the entire annual press conference which is translated into English.
Here is a link to the English language transcript of the press conference.
Let's look at some of Mr. Putin's comments on key issues that have made headline news in the West over the past year.
Given the ongoing sanctions that have been wielded by the West to punish Russia over its moves in Crimea, I found these comments in reference to Russia's present and future economic growth interesting and how Russia is planning for the future:
"By the way, you mentioned the projected 2 percent growth for the next two years. Yes, in the next years, 2019–2020, two percent each, but from 2021, the Government is already planning 3 percent, and then more. Therefore, I strongly hope that we will manage to do all this. Some fluctuations are probably possible, but, I repeat, the most important thing is that we need… Do you see what we need to do? We need to join another league of economies, and not only in terms of volumes. I think that taking the fifth place in terms of volume is quite possible. We used to rank fifth in terms of the economy, in purchasing power parity, and we will do it again, I think. However, we need to ascend to another league in terms of the quality of the economy. This is what our national projects are aimed at....
After all, we need to talk about bilateral relations; we are interested in this, as well as our American partners are, by the way. Of course, there is no super-global interest. Our mutual trade stands at a meagre 28 billion, or even lower now, less than 28, 25 to 27 billion maybe. This is nothing, zero. With China, we will reach 100 billion this year, and with the US, everything is in decline. Who is interested in this? No one, not even the President of the United States, who is promoting the idea of reviving the economy, as he says, in his quest to make America great again."
Here is an interesting exchange about the potential for nuclear war and Russia's response to the United States withdrawal from the INF Treaty. When reading this section, it is important to keep in mind that the Soviet Union lost at least 11 million soldiers and between 7 and 20 million civilians during the Second World War. By comparison, the United States lost roughly 400,000 soldiers and almost no civilians. As well, while entire major cities in Russia were both besieged and levelled, not a single bomb was dropped on the United States:
Anton Vernitsky: Mr President, as Soviet-era children, all of us feared a nuclear war very much. As you remember, various songs dealt with this issue. One of them had the following lyrics: “Sunny world: Yes, yes, yes; nuclear explosion: No, no, no.”
Vladimir Putin: Are you not afraid today?
Anton Vernitsky: Forty years have passed, and major media outlets on both sides of the ocean are beginning to publish a scenario for a nuclear exchange between Russia and the United States. The word “war” is sounding more and more often at household level, in kitchens.
Mr President, how can you calm down my little son who, just like me, also fears a nuclear war today? What words and actions can calm us all down?
Vladimir Putin: You know, I think you are right.
I just thought that all this, including the danger of such developments in the world, is now being hushed up and played down to some extent. It seems impossible or something that is not so important. At the same time, if, God forbid, something like this happens, it might destroy the whole of civilisation or perhaps the entire planet.
These issues are therefore serious, and it is a great pity that there is such a tendency to underestimate the problem, and that this tendency is probably becoming more pronounced. What are the current distinguishing features and dangers?
First, all of us are now witnessing the disintegration of the international system for arms control and for deterring the arms race. This process is taking place after the United States withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty that, as I have already noted a thousand times, was the cornerstone in the sphere of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and deterring the arms race.
After that, we were forced to respond by developing new weapons systems that could breach these ABM systems. Now, we hear that Russia has gained an advantage. Yes, this is true. So far, the world has no such weapons systems. Leading powers will develop them, but, as yet they do not exist.
In this sense, there are certain advantages. But, speaking of the entire strategic balance, this is just an element of deterrence and for equalising parities. This is just the preservation of parity, and nothing more.
They are now about to take another step and withdraw from the INF Treaty. What will happen? It is very difficult to imagine how the situation will unfold. What if these missiles show up in Europe? What are we supposed to do then?
Of course, we will need to take some steps to ensure our safety. And they should not whine later that we are allegedly trying to gain certain advantages. We are not. We are simply trying to maintain the balance and ensure our security.
The same goes for the START III Treaty, which expires in 2021. There are no talks on this issue. Is it because no one is interested, or believes it is necessary? Fine, we can live with that.
We will ensure our security. We know how to do it. But in general, for humanity, this is very bad, because this takes us to a very dangerous line.
Finally, there is another circumstance I cannot ignore. There is a trend to lower the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons. There are plans to create low-impact nuclear charges, which translates to tactical rather than global use. Such ideas are coming from Western analysts who say it is okay to use such weapons. However, lowering the threshold can lead to a global nuclear disaster. This is one danger we are facing today.
However, I believe humanity has enough common sense and enough of a sense of self-preservation not to take these things to the extreme."
Here is a rather interesting exchange regarding Russia's place in the world:
Ann Maria Simmons: I want to know if you really want this. Also, please, what is the real goal of your foreign policy? Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: With regard to ruling the world, we know where the headquarters that is trying to do so is located, and it is not in Moscow. However, this is related to the leading role of the United States in the global economy and defence spending: the United States is spending over $700 billion on defence, while we spend only $46 billion.
Just think of it, we have 146 million people in Russia, whereas the NATO countries’ population is 600 million, and you think our goal is to rule the world? This is a cliché imposed on public opinion in Western countries in order to resolve intra-bloc and domestic political issues.
When I say intra-bloc, I mean that in order for NATO to rally countries around itself, it needs an external threat. It does not work otherwise. You have to have someone to rally against. As a major nuclear power, Russia fits the bill perfectly...
In fact, the main goal of our foreign policy is to provide favourable conditions for the Russian Federation, its economy and social sphere, to ensure unfettered movement forward and to strengthen our country from the inside, above all, so that it can take its rightful place in the international arena as an equal among equals.
We are in favour of consolidating the system of international law, ensuring unconditional compliance with the UN Charter, and using this platform to develop equal relations with all the participants of international affairs."
Let's close this posting with a look at what Mr. Putin had to say about the situation regarding Crimea, the main reason why the United States and its European lapdogs imposed sanctions on Russia:
Artyom Artemenko (Crimea 24 television network): Mr President, you recently said that the restrictions Russia is facing from some countries have a direct bearing on the people living in Crimea who voted for reunification with Russia in 2014. Can you explain what you meant? How do we deal with this? Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: I did say this, even though I can hardly recall where I was at the time, but I can explain it. This is an interesting situation. What we hear from the outside is that Russia annexed Crimea. But what does annexation mean? It means a forcible takeover. If this had been an annexation and a takeover by force, the people in Crimea would have had nothing to do with it and would not be to blame. But if they came out and voted, this was not an annexation. So what is going on? After all, sanctions were imposed against them, against you. What are these sanctions? Restriction on mobility, restrictions on border crossings, visas, financial transactions, insurance companies, marine infrastructure use and the use of other facilities. These measures affect almost everyone living there. They were the ones targeted by these sanctions, and this is not just about singling out specific individuals like the government leaders in the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, but about targeting everyone. If they had had nothing to do with it, if it had been annexation, why were the people sanctioned? But if you were sanctioned for taking part in a specific vote, then they would have to admit that it actually took place. This is what this is about, and this is what I meant."
While you may not necessarily believe what Mr. Putin has to say, you must ask yourself this question:
When was the last time that the political leader of your nation sat down for nearly 3 hours in a question and answer session and had an audience of 1700 journalists? Despite what Western media says, Mr. Putin's approval rating is still the envy of most of the West's elected leadership.
In other words, signing a treaty indicates a nation's general willingness to the concept of the treaty but, until it is ratified or acceded to, it is not binding to a signing party/nation. Signing a treaty does, however, signal to the world that a nation agrees with the intent of the treaty and is willing to work towards ratification/accession.
Now, let's look at some recent comments from United States Secretary of State Mike Pompeo at a meeting held at NATO Headquarters in Brussels regarding Russia's alleged violations of the INF Treaty:
"Finally, and I want to be clear about this, America is upholding the rule of law. When we set forth our commitments, we agree to be bound by them. We expect the same of our treaty counterparts everywhere, and we will hold them accountable when their words prove untrustworthy. If we do not, we’ll get cheated by other nations, expose Americans to greater risk, and squander our credibility."
Let's examine the veracity of Mr. Pompeo's claims regarding Washington's trustworthiness when it comes to the signing and ratification of international treaties.
To gain a better understanding of the long-term animosity between the United States and Iran, it is essential to look back in history. In this posting, I hope to illuminate my readers on one aspect of the long history between the two nations that has led to the significant level of mistrust that has ultimately led to decades of geopolitical tension between Tehran and Washington.
During the early 1950s, there was a significant power struggle for control of the Iranian government between Mohammad Reza Shah, the eldest son of Reza Shah Pahlavi, the ruler of Iran and the founder of the Pahlavi dynasty, who took over the throne from his father on September 16, 1941 after the Soviet Union and Great Britain occupied Iran and forced Reza Shah into exile. As you may or may not be aware, in 1951, the democratically elected Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh took over as the Prime Minister of Iran. His political leaning was to the left of the spectrum and, as such, his government's most notable reform was the nationalization of Iran's oil industry which was under control of the British through the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (which later became the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company/British Petroleum/BP). In early August 1953, the Shah tried to dismiss Mossadegh but his attempt failed and the Shah of Iran was forced to leave the country by Mossadegh's supporters. As you can imagine, this did not sit well with the United States and the United Kingdom; as such, on August 19, 1953, Prime Minister Mossadegh was removed from power thanks to a joint operation by the Central Intelligence Agency and the United Kingdom's Secret Intelligence Service. The United States and United Kingdom then restored Mohammad Reza to his previous position as the Shah of Iran. Under the Shah's leadership and to pay back his promoters from the United States, the control of Iran's oil industry fell into the hands of an international consortium with British Petroleum having a 40 percent share and four American companies; Standard Oil of California (later Chevron), Standard Oil of New Jersey (later Exxon), Standard oil of New York (later Mobil) and Texaco each having an 8 percent share in the holding company that controlled Iran's hydrocarbon reserves.
As a parting gift, in 1957, intelligence officers from the United States and Israel assisted the Shah of Iran with the establishment of Sazeman-i Ettelaat va Amniyat-i Keshvar (the National Organization for Intelligence and Security) better known in the West as SAVAK or the Shah's Secret Police. SAVAK's purpose was to provide intelligence for the Shah, providing him with information on his opponents and any opposition movements within Iran. SAVAK had the power to investigate, arrest and indefinitely detain Iranians deemed guilty of opposition to the Shah's rule. SAVAK also payed the role of hearing examiner, remanding prisoners to trial with many trials being held in secret and without the use of witnesses and defense lawyers. According to 1979 testimony from Hassan Sana, a 23-year veteran of SAVAK, the Israelis wrote SAVAK's operational manuals and the CIA trained SAVAK agents in the use of both physical and psychological torture techniques including the use of electrodes and heated needles. At its peak, SAVAK is believed to have had as many as 60,000 agents serving in its ranks. Following the Revolution of 1979, many former members of SAVAK were executed by Iran's new leadership.
Here is a fascinating article from 1978 showing how expatriate Iranians could not escape the long reach of SAVAK even in the United States, noting that the article is sourced from the CIA website: